Political Expression in Sport

Front matter

= =, ym aS S SS 2 8 a SI RR RI

TRANSNATIONAL CHALLENGES, MORAL DEFENCES Cem Abanazir

POLITICAL EXPRESSION IN

Introduction

PART | Sport, Politics, the Market and the Law

1.1 A Worthy Foundation 9

1.2 Rethinking Autonomy 10 1.2.1 Interlinked Autonomies 10 1.2.2 Legal Autonomy 15

1.3 The Moral in the Normative 18

2.2 Maintaining the Normative Order 30 2.3 Regulatory Powers 33

2.4 Adjudicatory Powers 35

2.5 Enforcement Powers 38

2.6 A Plurality of Normative Orders 41 viii Contents

3 Political Sport 49 3.1 A Brief Overview of Nation-States, Politics, Symbols and Sport 49 3.2 Sport Associations as Collaborators 53 3.2.1 The Setting 53 3.2.2 The Practices of International Sport Associations 55 3.2.3 Domestic Sport Associations’ Front 60 3.2.3.1 The US 61 3.2.3.2 England 64 3.2.3.3 Turkey 65 3.2.4 A Possible Objection 67 3.3 Final Remarks 69

PART II Defending Freedom of Expression 77 4 Arguments for Freedom of Expression 79 4.2 Argument from Truth 79

4.3 Argument from Democracy 82

4.4 Arguments from Autonomy and Self-Fulfilment 84 4.5 Suspicion of Government 86

4.6 Constructivist/Rights-Based Approach 87

4.7 The Way Forward 89

5 Athletes, Spectators and Audiences as Individuals 94

5.1 Introduction 94 5.2 Fashioning the Ideal Individual for Sport 94 5.3 Global Entertainment and the Role of Borders 99 5.4 The Monopoly of Sport Associations 103 5.5 Preassigned Roles in Sport 106

5.5.1 Overview 106

5.5.2 The Athlete: ‘Additive Identity’? 107

5.5.3 The Spectator: ‘Multiplicative Identity’? 111 5.6 Captive Audiences 114

5.6.1 Athletes, Spectators and Audiences as

Captive Audiences? 115

5.6.2 Arguments Against Captive Audiences in Sport 115

5.7 Final Remarks 117

Contents ix

PART III Limiting Freedom of Expression 6.1 6.2 6.3

6.4

6.5 6.6

Restriction or Regulation? 125

Harms, Rights and Interests 126

6.3.1 The Harm in Expression 126

6.3.2 Balancing 129

Valuation and Categorisation of Expressions 136 6.4.1 The Foundations and Their Critique 136 6.4.2 The Situation in Sport 138

Arguments for Restriction 141

The Impact on Play 143

7.1 7.2 7.3

7.4

What Is Hate Speech? 150

The View from Sport 153

7.3.1 Overview 153

7.3.2 Expanding the Scope of Hate Speech 155 7.3.3 Hate Speech on the Part of Athletes 157 7.3.4 Hate Speech on the Part of Spectators 162 Histories 167

7.4.1 Challenging Histories 167

7.4.2 Unacceptable Histories 169

7.4.3 Acceptable Histories 171

Index

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank Alberto Carrio Sampedro and José Luis Pérez Trivifio for their guidance during my PhD candidacy. Their intuition about my choosing a subject I am ‘passionate about’ was uncanny. It is this passion that resonates throughout this book.

Mike McNamee and Simon Whitmore have been most supportive in this project, asking the right (hard) questions, guiding me to find the right balance of scope and addressing the possible problems that I had not noticed. Carmen Pérez González and Antoine Duval’s insightful questions and views at the viva voce reflect in certain parts of the book.

I would like to thank my family and friends for their unwavering support. Especially, I thank my mother for her patience and support. Melissa Lara Clissold deserves special mention for her careful reading of the work, as well as her constructive criticism. Her diligence made this work better.

Esin Sahin, Reşat Bostan and Ufuk Ozerten were generous in their moral support at the most crucial moments of the process. Having first-hand experience in sport as a lawyer, athlete and executive respectively, they were also the ones who taught me the intricacies of the relationship between sport and the law.

Last but not least, I would like to thank Halâk Sunat, who showed me the importance of being an autonomous individual, along with the hazards that come with paternalism.

A Note to the Reader

Before the reader steps into the book, I would like to present a few statements as to the manner in which I tackle specific issues:

1. I use the pronoun ‘they’ for many persons named (commentator or not) in this book. The instances I diverge from this general rule are the cases where the person in question would prefer to be called as ‘he’ or ‘she’.

2. Since I do not wish to reproduce the violence of words and terms which are or might be considered ‘hate speech’, I either obscured them through asterisks (=) or left those parts ambiguous.

3. Except for quotes, I use UK spelling and conventions throughout the book.

4. This is the only part in which I use first-person narrative.

Abbreviations

CAS CBA ECtHR EPL The FA IFAB IOC FIFA MLB MLS NBA NCAA NFL NHL SFT TFF UEFA UEFA

USOPC WNBA

Court of Arbitration for Sport

Collective Bargaining Agreement

European Court of Human Rights

English Premier League

The Football Association

International Football Association Board International Olympic Committee

Fédération Internationale de Football Association Major League Baseball

Major League Soccer

National Basketball Association

National Collegiate Athletic Association National Football League

National Hockey League

Swiss Federal Tribunal

Turkish Football Federation

Union of European Football Associations

CEDB Union of European Football Associations Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body

United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee Women’s National Basketball Association

Written Norms

CEV Beach Volleyball Guidelines 2021 Edition

Curt Flood Act of 1998, The

Equality Act 2010

The FA Disciplinary Regulations 2021-2022 v. 1.0

FIFA Stadium Code of Conduct for the FIFA Confederations Cup Russia 2017 and the 2018 FIFA World Cup Russia

FIFA Statutes 2021 Edition

IFAB Laws of the Game

IHF Official Rule Book 2021/2022

MLB Basic Agreement 2017-2021

MLS Fan Code of Conduct

NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement 2017

NBA Constitution and By-Laws 2019 Edition

NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement 2020

Olympic Charter 2021 Edition

PyeongChang 2018 Terms & Conditions of Ticket Purchase, Possession and Use

Rule 50.2 Guidelines—Olympic Games Tokyo 2020

Rule 50.2 Guidelines—Olympic Winter Games Beijing 2022

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Ticket Conditions of Sale and Entry Australian Open 2022 Melbourne Park

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

UEFA Disciplinary Regulations 2020 Edition

UEFA Equipment Regulations 2021 Edition

UEFA Fair Play Regulations 2015 Edition

The United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee, US Olympic and Paralympic Trials Participant Rules: Demonstrations

United States Soccer Federation 2019-2020 Policy Manual

Cases

2009/650 Esas, 2009/621 Karar, TFF Board of Appeals Decision of 17 November 2009.

Bundesgerichtshof [BGH], Az. KZR 6/15, Pechstein v International Skating Union [2016]. Translation from German as retrieved from the CAS Website. <www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Pechstein___ISU_translation_ ENG _final.pdf>

Boy Scouts of America v Dale 530 US 640 (2000).

CAS 2006/A/1008 Rayo Vallecano de Madrid SAD v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

CAS 2007/A/1217 Feyenoord Rotterdam v UEFA.

CAS 2008/A/1583 Sport Lisboa e Benfica Futebol SAD v UEFA, & FC Porto Futebol SAD; CAS 2008/A/1584 Vitória Sport Clube de Guimarães v UEFA & FC Porto Futebol SAD.

CAS 2012/A/2702 Gyéri ETO v UEFA.

CAS 2012/A/2913 Mu-yen Chu & Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee v International Olympic Committee (IOC).

CAS 2013/A/3047 FC Zenit St. Petersburg v Russian Football Union (RFU).

CAS 2013/A/3094 Hungarian Football Federation v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

CAS 2013/A/3139 Fenerbahce SK v Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA).

CAS 2013/A/3324 GNK Dinamo v UEFA & CAS 2013/A/3369 GNK Dinamo v UEFA.

CAS 2014/A/3562 Josip Simunic v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

CAS 2014/A/3578 Koninklijke Nederlandse Voetbalbond (KNVB) v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

CAS 2014/A/3759 Dutee Chand v Athletics Federation of India (AFI) & The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF).

CAS 2015/A/3874 Football Association of Albania (FAA) v Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) & Football Association of Serbia (FAS).

Cases xv

CAS 2016/A/4558 Mitchell Whitmore v International Skating Union (ISU).

CAS 2017/A/5166 & 5405 Palestine Football Association v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

CAS 2018/A/5683 Juventus Football Club S.p.A. v Envigado Football Club S.A. & Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

CAS 2018/A/5888 Centro Atlético Fénix, Club Atlético Boston River, Club Atlético Cerro, Club Atlético Progreso, Club Atlético River Plate, Danubio Fútbol Club, Defensor Sporting Club, Liverpool Fútbol Club, Cerro Largo FC, Central Español Futbol Club, Club Atlético Villa Teresa, Racing Club de Montevideo, Club Sportivo Miramar Misiones, Montevideo Wanderers EC., Club Atlético Juventud v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) & Confederación Sudamericana de Fútbol (CONMEBOL) & Asociación Uruguaya de Fútbol (AUF).

CAS 2018/A/5939 Patricio Heras v Tennis Integrity Unit/Professional Tennis Integrity Officers (PTIOs).

Case C-415/93 Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v Jean-Marc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR 1-4921.

Case C-519/04 P David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities [2006] ECR 1-6991.

Case AT-40208 International Skating Union [2018] reported online.

Cohen v California 403 US 15 (1971).

Commission Decision 2000/400/EC, Eurovision (Case IV/32.150) [2000] OJ L 151/8.

Erznoznik v City of Jacksonville 422 US 205 (1975).

The FA (ex parte Cheshire FA) v. Anthony Harvey, The FA Disciplinary Commission of 13 June 2019.

The FA (ex parte Kent FA) v. Antony Whittaker, The FA Disciplinary Commission 13 December 2016.

The FA v. Barnsley FC, FA Regulatory Commission decision of 12 February 2020.

The FA (ex parte Hampshire FA) v. Bradley Fairweather, FA Regulatory Commission decision of 29 November 2019.

The FA (ex parte Lancashire FA) v. David Worthington, FA Regulatory Commission decision of 09 January 2016.

The FA (ex parte Essex FA) v. Dean West, The FA Disciplinary Commission decision of 30 September 2016.

The FA v. Elliot Whitehouse, The FA Regulatory Commission of 20 May 2020.

The FA (ex parte Berks & Bucks Football Association) v. Geoff Dixon, Britwell FC, The FA Regulatory Commission decision of 18 November 2017.

The FA (ex parte Lancashire FA) v. Jordan Caslin, The FA Disciplinary Commission decision of 09 June 2016.

xvi Cases

The FA v Luis Suarez, FA Regulatory Commission decision of 30 December 2011.

The FA (ex parte Norfolk FA) v. Mattishall FC, The FA Disciplinary Commission decision of 23 March 2018.

The FA v Nicolas Anelka, FA Regulatory Commission decision of 03 March 2014.

The FA (ex parte Birmingham FA) v. Richard Learnihan, The FA Disciplinary Commission decision of 14 November 2017.

The FA (ex parte Cambridgeshire FA) v. Ryan Hayward, FA Regulatory Commission decision of 12 December 2016.

The FA v. Stevenage FC, Decision of the FA Regulatory Commission decision of 01 July 2019.

FIFA Appeal Committee, Sayed Bager of 27 March 2020 (Decision 191361 APC).

Flood v Kuhn et al. 407 US 258 (1972).

Harding v United States Figure Skating Ass’n 851 F Supp 1476 (District Cout of Oregon 1994) 1479.

Lehman v City of Shaker Heights 418 US 298 (1974).

Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v Garvey 532 US 504 (2001).

Mercury Bay Boating Club v San Diego Yacht Club 76 NY 2d 256 (1990).

National Collegiate Athletic Association v Alston 520 US (2021).

Reynolds v International Amateur Athletic Federation 23 F.3d (1994) 1110.

Rowan v Post Office Dept. 397 US 728 (1970).

Schenck v United States 249 US 47 (1919).

Swiss Federal Tribunal, First Civil Law Court, Francelino da Silva Matuzalem v Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), 4A_558/2011 (English translation of the judgment). Reported in CAS Bulletin 2/2012.

TAS 2002/A/423 PSV Eindhoven/Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA).

TAS 2006/A/1119 Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) c/ Iñigo Landaluce

JEFA Appeals Body decision of 21 June 2016, FC Barcelona. Reported in UEFA, ‘Case Law: Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body & Appeals Body’ (January 2016—June 2016).

EFA CEDB decision of 22 August 2013, Budapest Honvéd. Reported in UEFA, ‘Case Law: Control and Disciplinary Body & Appeals Body’ (July 2013—December 2013).

JEFA CEDB decision of 28 October 2019, Bulgarian Football Union.

JEFA CEDB decision of 07 July 2017, Crvena Zvezda. Reported in UEFA,

‘Case Law: Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body, Appeals Body, CFCB

Adjudicatory Chamber’ (July—December 2017).

JEFA CEDB decision of 13 February 2014, CSKA Moskva. Reported in

UEFA, ‘Case Law: Control and Disciplinary Body & Appeals Body’

UEFA CEDB decision of 17 October 2019, Football Association of Serbia.

Gig C G

C

Cases xvii

UEFA CEDB decision of 19 May 2016, The Football Association of Wales. Reported in UEFA, ‘Case Law: Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body & Appeals Body’ (January 2016—June 2016).

JEFA CEDB decision of 25 April 2019, Hungarian Football Federation.

JEFA Appeals Body decision of 29 August 2013, Juventus. Reported in

UEFA, ‘Case Law: Control and Disciplinary Body & Appeals Body’

(July 2013—December 2013).

JEFA Appeals Body decision of 21 May 2019, S.S. Lazio.

EFA Appeals Body decision of 3 February 2015, Legia Warszawa. Reported in UEFA, ‘Case Law: Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body & Appeals Body’ (January 2015—June 2015).

EFA CEDB decision of 22 March 2018, Paris Saint-Germain. Reported in UEFA, ‘Case Law: Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body, Appeals Body and CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber’ (January—June 2018).

EFA CEDB decision of 12 August 2019, FK Partizan.

EFA CEDB decision of 22 August 2019, Rangers FC.

EFA CEDB decision of 30 August 2019, Rangers FC.

EFA CEDB decision of 23 March 2017, FC Schalke 04. Reported in UEFA, ‘Case Law: Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body & Appeals Body’ (January—June 2017).

EFA Appeal Body decision of 15 September 2019, SK Slovan Bratislava.

EFA Appeals Body decision of 26 June 2013, Zenit St. Petersburg. Reported in UEFA, ‘Case Law: Control and Disciplinary Body & Appeals Body’ (January 2013—June 2013).

JEFA CEDB decision of 07 December 2017, Zenit St. Petersburg. Reported in UEFA, ‘Case Law: Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body, Appeals Body, CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber’ (July—December 2017).

EFA CEDB decision of 13 October 2016, FC Zürich. Reported in UEFA, ‘Case Law: Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body & Appeals Body’ (July 2016—December 2016).

United States v Stevens 559 US 460 (2010).

West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette 319 US 624 (1943).

GCG CC Gc G Ge Ge

=

Ge

Introduction

Globalisation has had a profound effect on how sport is governed and marketed. Especially since the 1990s, globalisation has shaped and nurtured sport while in its turn sport has acted as a catalyst for it. In line with the commercialisation of sport, the influence of sport associations! over their stakeholders and other persons has increased significantly (Giulianotti and Brownell 2012, 203-4; Rowe 2003, 284-85). The influence comes in the shape of norms along with their interpretation, adjudication and enforcement at domestic and international levels. The norms have a transnational effect, in that the individual, in their position both as stakeholder and spectator, may act according to these norms within the context of sporting activities. Inherently related to globalisation and commercialisation, competitions such as the Olympic Games, FIFA World Cup, EPL and NBA enjoy global audiences.

The scope and reach of these global and domestic competitions point up the global effects of the policies and norms of international and domestic sport associations. Among the effects, the rights of those who take part in, attend, watch or listen to these competitions have come to the forefront. In view of the NFL player Colin Kaepernick’s protest, the Black Lives Matter movement as well as the increase of the instances of hate speech on and off the field, a theoretical and practical approach to freedom of expression in sport is necessary. Some of the central questions are as follows:

1) what would be the moral foundations for a defence of the freedom of expression of the athletes, spectators and audiences,

2) what is the source of the sport associations’ power over these elements,

3) what is the nature of the interplay between measures taken by these associations against political expression as well as economic interests and political interests,

4) what are the limits of freedom of expression in sport, and finally,

5) how should the sport associations deal with hate speech?

This book will time and again refer to the rhetoric of ‘politics-free sport’ and ‘political neutrality’. In parallel to the view that sport is autonomous from the state, the

DOI: 10.4324/9781003241102-1 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.

market and society, political expression has been condemned when it is associated with sport. In reality, sport does not have absolute autonomy from society. As Steenbergen and Tamboer (1998) have noted, ‘[i]n the stormy ocean of society, sport is neither an island nor a plaything whose direction is completely determined by the waves’. Therefore, despite its particularities, values and mechanisms that aim to maintain it, sport finds itself a place within the criss-crossing networks of society. The issues concerning sport are never solely sport-specific. They concern society in general, especially on issues pertaining to morals (39-44). Sport is not insulated from ‘outside’, especially from the state and the market. Even if the spectators and audiences may have an escapist notion of sport and agree with the idea of insulation, the facts that the actors in the production and consumption of sport include persons who have roles in ‘real life’ and what happens in sports venues reverberates in ‘real life’ weaken that argument (Kadlac 2022, 5).

In view of the multi-dimensional relationship between sport and other spheres of activities such as the market and politics, this book argues that the regulatory, adjudicatory and enforcement powers of sport associations (cumulatively called ‘RAE powers’) enable specific processes for maintaining the political and economic interests of sport, the state and the market. For globalised sporting events, the process is transnational, meaning it transcends the human-made borders of the state and continents. Such transcendence is cemented by the increasing power of non-state regulation and the interpretation and enforcement of entities other than state courts.

Of first-rate importance is the assertion that sport associations discriminate against political expression according to their viewpoint. The state and the supporters of the status quo already have the means and the arena to convey their version of politics through national team competitions, ceremonies, and sport association-approved expressions; whereas expressions that go against the status quo are restricted in line with the rhetoric of politics-free sport and political neutrality. ‘Articulate consistency’, a notion set forth by Ronald Dworkin, sheds light into the matter.’ Under this notion, the principles, rules, theories, standards and justifications used in reaching a decision should be also applied in future cases unless the reasons do not permit it. The distribution of benefits—according to principles—has to be realised in a reasonably equal and consistent manner. The distributor has to recant previous distributions if they are to change the way the distribution is realised (Dworkin [1977]2005, 88). Throughout the work, due to the contention that expressions are not treated equally in the eyes of football associations, calls for articulate consistency will be made. Pérez Trivifio (2017) has suggested that either all political expression should be allowed or all of them should be restricted (42-45). In accepting articulate consistency as the basis of an analysis of freedom of expression, this book defends the idea that in sport all political expression should be allowed regardless of their viewpoint, but subject to limitations introduced in the final part. The emphasis on the equal treatment of expressions derives from the idea that a failure to do so would have a negative effect on the individuals who convey and receive them.

Since the terms “freedom of expression’ and ‘sport’ are deep and wide in scope, certain limitations to the analyses will be in place. As to the former, the notion is loaded with meaning, capable of drawing up support from different societies and ideologies. The problem of categorising expressions notwithstanding, freedom of expression may pertain to political expression and personal expression that may reflect the moral powers of an individual and ‘commercial speech’, to name a few. This work focuses on political expression. Concerning the persons involved, adult athletes, spectators and audiences are the primary subject matter. The focus on the most important elements in the production and consumption processes in sport is crucial because most of the literature on the so-called ‘sports law’ (Lex Sportiva) focuses on the dominant institutions such as sport federations as well as the various elements of the market (McArdle 2015, 24). Finally, sports venues constitute the spatial limit, which leaves comments on traditional media and social media out of the scope of investigation. Yet in certain cases, social media comments help advance and support certain arguments. Whilst avoiding a discussion on the parameters for calling any activity a sport (e.g. esports, running, boxing), the book covers sports with similar production and consumption processes but does not claim to explicate the situation in motor racing and road cycling. The crucial point in the exploration of the subject is that it stays silent on the motivations and intentions of the individuals, as this would require a separate project which takes account of the psychological and moral psychological aspects of the individual and groups of individuals.

To summarise, this book does not aim to fill a gap in the literature, but rather it takes the first step in the creation of a literature on the subject by providing a meaningful framework for a defence of freedom of expression in sport. It does not claim to be the only way to defend the freedom of expression of athletes, spectators and audiences. The defence and its limits could also be woven by taking account of paradigms that are out of the scope of this book, such as social contract-informed approaches to sport or utilitarian or functionalist defences of freedom of expression. The book at hand is incisive, not decisive. Nevertheless, it is brave enough to explore novel ways of approaching a fundamental issue in sport.

In the first part of Chapter 1, the focus is on the links between sport, the state and the market, whilst the second part of the chapter theorises how sport can get away with certain practices that would be considered illegal and immoral in other spheres of activities. The RAE powers are of concern in Chapter 2. This chapter, by giving an overview of how sport associations affect the conduct of participants and spectators alike, explains how norms, as well as their adjudication and enforcement undergird these effects. This chapter also takes a look at how sport associations invert the legal/illegal and moral/immoral dichotomies in the context political expression. Chapter 3, which closes Part I, challenges the ideas of politics-free sport and political neutrality that shape the restrictions of political expression along with their interpretation. This chapter tracks the nationalistic, militaristic and inconsistent practices of certain international and national sport associations. Concerning the latter, the US, England and Turkey will be the source of the examples.

Part II focuses on freedom of expression. Chapter 4 presents a brief overview of the philosophical arguments for freedom of expression, and opts for the individualistic, rights-based and moral argument by David AJ Richards for this book. This chapter also confronts the theoretical problems that come with this choice. Chapter 5 expands upon this model and adapts it to sport. In essence, the ideal characteristics of the individual as informed by literature based on Kantian ideals are at the forefront. Since athletes, spectators and audience are individuals with moral powers, the restrictions of political expression become the main targets of autonomy-based arguments for the right to freedom of expression.

Part III aims to introduce limits to freedom of expression in sport. In Chapter 6, general restrictions as to political expression are the centre of discussion. Taking account of arguments for restricting certain expressions, the situation in sport and the ideal position of sport associations provide the necessary commentary for both how things are and how things should be. This chapter will also clarify what is implicated when an expression is deemed to be ‘political’. Finally, Chapter 7 strives to present a coherent framework for restricting ‘hate speech’ in sport. As hate speech has been an integral part of especially football, the chapter argues for sport-specific restrictions for expressions which might otherwise be political. It will conclude with an overview of the problematic relationship between sport, the past and the expressions that derive from the latter.

1 The term ‘association’ is an overarching term that will be used to describe all sport governing bodies. Of course, this is not true because not all legal persons governing sport could be brought under the rubric of a legal association. This being the case, sport invariably includes the coming together of competitors under certain rules, which points out the fact that they create a sort of association consisting of natural and legal persons.

2 Schauer (1983), too, claims independent creation of the notion if not to originality (1296, footnote 62).

Dworkin, R. [1977]2005. Taking Rights Seriously: New Impression with a Reply to Critics. London: Duckworth.

Giulianotti, R., and S. Brownell. 2012. “Olympic and World Sport: Making Transnational Society?” The British Journal of Sociology 63 (2): 199-215. doi:10.1111/j.1468-4446.2012. 01406.x.

Kadlac, A. 2022. The Ethics of Sports Fandom. Abingdon: Routledge.

McArdle, D. 2015. Dispute Resolution in Sport: Athletes, law and arbitration. Abingdon: Routledge.

Pérez Trivifio, J. L. 2017. “Freedom of Expression and Political Opinions in Sport Stadiums.” In Reflecting on Modern Sport in Ancient Olympia: Proceedings of the 2016 Meeting of the International Association for the Philosophy of Sport at the International Olympic Academy, edited by H. L. Reid and E. Moore, 35-45. Sioux City, IA: Parnassos Press.

Rowe, D. 2003. “Sport and the Repudiation of the Global.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 38 (3): 281-94.

Schauer, E 1983. “Must Speech Be Special?” Northwestern University Law Review 78 (5): 1284-306.

Steenbergen, J., and J. Tamboer. 1998. “Ethics and the Double Character of Sport: An Attempt to Systematize Discussion of the Ethics of Sport.” In Ethics and Sport, edited by M. J. McNamee and J. Parry, 39-50. London: Routledge (EBSCOhost version).

Part |

Chapter 1 1.1 A Worthy Foundation

Arguably, the clearest account of the autonomy of sport is Geeraert, Mrkonjic, and Chappelet’s (2015) re-contextualisation of Chappelet’s (2010) previous work on the subject, which had put forth that the autonomy of sport is not made up of a single dimension but is a concept made up of conceptual, psychological, political, legal and financial dimensions as well (29-33). In the re-contextualisation, the authors removed the psychological dimension and defined the various dimensions as ‘political autonomy’, ‘legal autonomy’, ‘financial autonomy’ and ‘pyramidal autonomy’.

Having classified the types of autonomy within the context of international sport associations, the later work goes on to broach them separately. The authors define political autonomy as ‘the historic and path-dependent autonomy of an [international sport governing body] to fulfil its primary function built upon freedom of association, without being subject to political interference from public authorities’. In its turn, legal autonomy is ‘the private autonomy of an [international sport governing body] to fulfil its primary function with a legal impact at national or at international level, determined and confined by the legal framework imposed by public authorities’. Financial autonomy pertains to ‘the capacity of an [international sport governing body] to fulfil its primary function, while not relying on external public investment, internal systemic resources or sponsoring from a single commercial partner’. Finally, pyramidal autonomy is ‘the autonomy of an [international sport governing body] to fulfil its primary function within a hierarchical pyramidal system’. The common ground for the various types of autonomies is that ‘within the networked governance that emerges in international sport, [international sport governing bodies] act according to a rational choice logic, deploying proactive strategies to safeguard each of the dimensions of their autonomy as much as possible’ (footnote omitted) (Geeraert, Mrkonjic, and Chappelet 2015, 474-82).

Despite the clarity and soundness of the various types of autonomy, there are certain problems with the account, which to an extent overlap with the

DOI: 10.4324/9781003241102-3 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.

self-presented caveats by the authors (Geeraert, Mrkonjic, and Chappelet 2015, 483). The authors mainly focused on the Olympic Movement and FIFA, whereas this book has a broader scope. More importantly, the moral aspirations of sport have to be taken into account. Geeraert’s (2021) later contentions on the two further dimensions of autonomy are useful. ‘Internal autonomy’ depicts a picture where stakeholders wield more power in shaping the policies of the associations they are a part of, whereas ‘external autonomy’ points out that the state and the market have the potential to affect their moves (255). The chapter will mostly deal with the latter, claiming that the state and the market do have links to sport and they do affect the way sport associations administrate sport, and vice versa. As Allison and Tomlinson (2017) have argued, there is the ‘myth of autonomy’ that supports the practices of sport associations.

1.2 Rethinking Autonomy

1.2.1 Interlinked Autonomies

Sport associations and society misconstrue the separation of autonomies to support the contention that the state, the market and civil society have different functions, and thus they are separated from each other. In reality, the state deals with interpersonal and intragroup relationships—the political sphere engages with the market and sport. Sport is not only a part of civil society but also consists of sport associations that could be considered as ‘corporate actors’ (Weinberg 2015, 17-24) and as a market due to their creation of the ‘transfer market’. Going beyond the problems of locating where sport stands vis-a-vis the state and the market, and assuming that Geeraert, Mrkonjic and Chappelet’s theorisation of autonomy is an analytical rather than an empirical account, this section argues that in certain cases the borders between autonomies are either non-existent or ambiguous.

The separation of the financial, political and cultural spheres is intricately linked to the claims that ‘sport and politics do not mix’ and ‘amateurism is the essence of sport’. Especially with the help of a rich theoretical arsenal, Marxist studies of sport have refuted these claims: there is no liberal separation of practices (Morgan 2017, 96-96). Anticipating ‘the myth of autonomy’, John Hargreaves ({1982]2014) underlined the facts that:

sports partake of the economy, in so far as they require resources, which in capitalist societies are mostly allocated on a commercial basis; they partake of politics, in so far as they serve as an agency of political mobilisation on occasions; and they partake of culture, in so far as they are a popular form of leisure activity.

The autonomy of sport is compromised in the interpretation and adjudicatory processes of the bodies that have jurisdiction over sporting matters. Yet sport is neither dependent on the state and the market nor an exact reflection of the forces that affect it (Andrews and Giardana 2008, 396-98). More importantly, this chapter and the following one suggest that despite the collaboration between the state and sport, there is also a clear conflict between them.